Tammy B., Matter of

Decision Date17 August 1992
Citation587 N.Y.S.2d 377,185 A.D.2d 881
PartiesIn the Matter of TAMMY B. (Anonymous), Department of Social Services, Respondent; Thomas B. (Anonymous), Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant.

Stephen R. Hunter, County Atty., Goshen (Stephen Toole, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and MILLER, PIZZUTO, and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights based upon permanent neglect, the father appeals from so much of a dispositional order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 21, 1990, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated November 15, 1990, which, after a hearing, found, inter alia, that his daughter, Tammy B., had been permanently neglected, terminated his parental rights and placed the child with the Commissioner of the Orange County Department of Social Services for adoption. The notice of appeal from the fact-finding order is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the dispositional order (see, CPLR 5520[c]. The appeal from the dispositional order brings up for review the fact-finding order.

ORDERED that the dispositional order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The father contends that the Family Court erred in terminating his parental rights, because the petitioner failed to sustain its burden of proving that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, particularly since the agency did not make suitable arrangements for him to visit his daughter. We disagree.

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the threshold consideration is whether the agency has discharged its statutory obligation to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see, Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77, 86, 544 N.Y.S.2d 535, 542 N.E.2d 1052; Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 390, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461, 472 N.E.2d 311; Matter of Sonia H., 177 A.D.2d 575, 576 N.Y.S.2d 165). Here, the petitioner provided the father with an opportunity to visit with his daughter on Wednesdays from 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. At the father's request the petitioner permitted a friend of the father's, to supervise Sunday visits. Unfortunately, this visitation schedule ended after one month as Tammy became uncontrollable. The father was subsequently given the opportunity to see Tammy during the originally-set hours. The father complained that he could not make the visits because it conflicted with his work schedule. The father drove a taxi cab from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Despite this 12-hour shift, the father conceded that he could eat lunch at any time he wanted and thus it appears that he could have made the scheduled visits, which were in the same town that he worked. Furthermore the father was unemployed during a 6-month period, yet he only made visits with his daughter on an "off and on" basis during that time. The father conceded that on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Interest of Clifford M., In re
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1998
    ...was the sole ground upon which Suzette's rights were terminated. Finally, the dissent relies upon Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1992), in which a New York appellate court affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights based on permanent neglect. A review of t......
  • In re Sarah J.A.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 13, 2017
    ...156 A.D.3d 69166 N.Y.S.3d 668In the MATTER OF SARAH J.A. (Anonymous).Putnam County Department of Social Services, respondent;Ramadan G. O.A. (Anonymous), appellant.201613108201613109Docket No ... personal and familial problems which endangered the child, and which could endanger the child in the future (see156 A.D.3d 693 Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881, 882, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). The father's partial compliance with the service plan was insufficient to preclude a finding of ... ...
  • Ashley JJ, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 4, 1996
    ... ... Simply stated, despite petitioner's efforts, respondent failed to address and overcome the problems that led to Ashley's removal in the first instance (see generally, Matter of Michelle F. [Matthew G.], supra, 635 N.Y.S.2d at 710-711; Matter of Tammy B. [Thomas B.], 185 A.D.2d 881, 882, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 702, 594 N.Y.S.2d 716, 610 N.E.2d 389) ...         Similarly, we have no quarrel with Family Court's finding that respondent failed to plan for Ashley's future or its conclusion that termination of respondent's ... ...
  • Nassau County Dept. of Social Services on Behalf of James M. v. Diana T.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 8, 1994
    ...615 N.Y.S.2d 721 ... 207 A.D.2d 399 ... In the Matter of NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ... SERVICES, on Behalf of JAMES M. (Anonymous), Appellant, ... DIANA T. (Anonymous), Respondent ... Supreme ... agency has discharged its statutory obligation to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship" (Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881, 882, 587 N.Y.S.2d 377; see also, Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77, 544 N.Y.S.2d 535, 542 N.E.2d 1052) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT